Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1204 (TS)

Bellampally Raji Reddy v. Bellampally Sammi Reddy

2025-10-13

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.710 of 2018 in O.S.No.148 of 2010, dated 15.04.2021 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT to condone the delay of 2,742 days. 2 . Petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.148 of 2010. 3 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that summons/notices in O.S.No.148 of 2010 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad are not served on the petitioners to enable them to appear before the Court and ought to have verified whether summons are served on the petitioners or not. The trial Court ought to have seen that there is sufficient cause in not approaching the trial Court within time to set aside the ex parte decree and the petitioners came to know about the ex parte decree in the RDO appeal where the respondent has filed a copy of the order passed in O.S.No.148 of 2010 dated 10.02.2011. Delay occurred in filing the petition in setting aside the ex parte decree is neither willful and nor wanton and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4 . Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners were served with the summons. But, due to non filing of the written statement, they were set ex parte. Thereby, the learned trial Court has passed a judgment and decree in his favour in O.S.No.148 of 2010, dated 10.02.2011. 5 . The petitioners have stated in I.A.No.710 of 2018 that they have not received summons/notices from the Court in O.S.No.148 of 2010 and they recently came to know that respondent has filed an Appeal No.274 of 2017 before the RDO, Huzurabad. In the said appeal, their counsel has filed the counter and documents and the counsel on record has not properly advised them. It is further stated in I.A.No.710 of 2018 that petitioner No.2’s father was hospitalized and his father was suffering with lower backache (lumbage), Sciatica and joint pains and the Doctor has advised to take regular treatment and rest from January, 2010 till the date of filing the petition i.e., on 11.09.2018. It is further stated in I.A.No.710 of 2018 that petitioner No.2’s father was hospitalized and his father was suffering with lower backache (lumbage), Sciatica and joint pains and the Doctor has advised to take regular treatment and rest from January, 2010 till the date of filing the petition i.e., on 11.09.2018. Due to which, the petitioners are not aware of the decree passed by the Court in the said suit on 10.02.2011. 6. The respondent-plaintiff and his daughter has alienated the suit land to the petitioner No.2 – defendant No.2 by executing a simple sale deed and the same is mutated in his name and pass book is issued in his favour, which happened before filing of the suit, there is a delay of 2,742 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S.No.148 of 2010, dated 10.02.2011 from 09.03.2011 to 10.09.2018. 7. The respondent has filed his counter and contended that the summons were served on the petitioners. They failed to file written statement and thereby they were set ex parte and finally the learned trial Court had disposed of O.S.No.148 of 2010 on 10.02.2011. No bona fide reasons are mentioned by the petitioners to condone the delay of 2,742 days. Hence, interference is not called for and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 8 . Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K. Valarmathi and Others vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing and Others, 2025 Live Law (SC) 899, observed in paragraph Nos.39 and 40, which reads as under: “39. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing and Others, 2025 Live Law (SC) 899, observed in paragraph Nos.39 and 40, which reads as under: “39. Thus, we have no hesitation in saying that both the expressions, by a necessary implication indicate that the phrase “within such period” signifies that the period covered therein extends to not only the original period within which, the appeal or the application, as the case may be, should have been filed, if not for the delay, but also the period taken in addition to the prescribed period of limitation for filing such appeal or application, as the case may be. 40. As such, under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay in filing of an appeal or application, as the case may be, beyond the stipulated period of limitation, the delay in the filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a “sufficient cause” that resulted in such delay for both the prescribed period of limitation as-well as the period after the expiry of limitation, up to actual date of filing of such appeal or application, as the case may be, or to put it simply, explanation has to be given for the entire duration from the date when the clock of limitation began to tick, up until the date of actual filing, for seeking condonation of delay by recourse to Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT . 10. The respondent-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.148 of 2010 for grant of perpetual injunction against the petitioners-defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land in Sy.No.67/C to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas, situated at Kandugula Village, Huzurabad Mandal, alleging that the petitioners- defendants interfered with his possession on 22.08.2010 and disturbed the western side boundary of the suit land. 11. It is mentioned in the judgment dated 10.02.2011, in O.S.No.148 of 2010, that the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, remained ex-parte. The respondent-plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 and finally, learned trial Court had decreed the suit as prayed for. 12. 11. It is mentioned in the judgment dated 10.02.2011, in O.S.No.148 of 2010, that the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, remained ex-parte. The respondent-plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 and finally, learned trial Court had decreed the suit as prayed for. 12. The reasons mentioned by the petitioners in the affidavit is that the petitioner No.2’s father suffered lower back ache (lumbage), Sciatica and with joint pains and the Doctor has advised him to take regular treatment from January, 2010 till the date of filing the application i.e., on 11.09.2018. The contention of the petitioners in the affidavit is that they were not served with the summons/notices, which is against the record and the counter filed by the respondent shows that the summons were served on the petitioners, but, due to non filing of the written statement, they were said ex parte. Furthermore, delay of 2,742 days is not properly explained by the petitioners in the affidavit and the reasoning of the trial Court at paragraph No.5 supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that summons were served on the petitioners and they were given ample opportunity to file written statement. 13. Learned trial court has appreciated the facts in proper perspective and rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 2,742 days. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and the Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14 . Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders shall stand vacated and miscellaneous, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.